Index Ne.

3
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
PHYSICIANS ANi) SURGEONS
230 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601
NEWS LETTER
PRESIDENT'S HEALTH MESSAGE
The President's health message calls for expansion
of federal government interference in the practice of
medicine. He helps lay the groundwork for "nationali-
zation of health" and simultaneously denies it is neces-
sary. He pours fuel on the fire calling it "a crisis"
while the real "crisis" is reckless government usurpation
of power and deficit spending.
In 1965 federal interventionists, by the unconstitu-
tional assumption of power, established the principle
of federal government interference in private medical
care. As they said then re Medicare "all we want to
do is get our foot in the door and we will expand the
program after that."
The first paragraph of Mr. Nixon's message, ask-
ing for expansion of government, explains that: Ameri-
ca's medical bill went up 170% in the last ten years,
and the federal government was largely responsible.
However, he doesn't propose to re-establish the sound
constitutional principle that the federal government
has no authority to extract money from the people to
spend on health schemes but asks, "What are we
getting for all this money? As if "we" meaning most-
ly the government has a just right to the money.
President Nixon's proposed expansion of central
government interference in medical care appears mild
compared to the radical plan of Senator Kennedy. Yet,
it is very dangerous and contains some of the same
radical basic proposals of the Kennedy scheme.
Both plans will increase costs and lower the ~
of care. Both are against individual responsibility upon
which this country's success is based. Both violate the
clear meaning of the Constitution as intended by its
founders. Neither is authorized by any amendment to
the Constitution. Both illegitimately usurp power. Both
violate ethical principles - are uneconomic and perpet-
uate a hoax against unsuspecting patients and tax-
payers. Both are collectivist oriented. The differences
are of degree only.
Mr. Nixon's plan would subsidize closed-panel
March, 1971, Volume 25, No. 3
IN THIS ISSUE
1. President Nixon's Health Message
2. "Whiched"
3. Status of the Nation's Health
4. Family Health Insurance Plan
S. Crunching Burdens of Bureaucracy
6. Sympathy
7. Private Doctors Institute
April 15-17, 1971 Chicago
8. Womon's Auxiliary
9. Resolutions
per-capita prepayment groups as would both Senator
Kennedy's and Senator Javits' (R. New York ardent
interventionist). Per-capita payment is the basis of so-
cialized medicine in Great Britain. Mr. Nixon says his
administration is "enthusiastic" about this scheme and
says, ''That is why we proposed legislation last March
to enable Medicare recipients to join such programs."
This concept was in the 1970 Social Security Bill
(HR-17550) which passed the House and the Senate last
year but died as the last session expired before the
House and Senate could reconcile their differences. It
has been reintroduced. It, too, was strongly supported
by the leftists who understood how it would gradually
undermine our system.
AAPS strongly opposed it in testimony before the
Senate Finance Committee in September. Most other
medical groups who say they are for saving private
medicine, gave only token opposition to it. AMA, in fact,
submitted its own plan of subsidy and control (Medi-
credit and Peer Review) which could be used as a club
to police doctors via medical societies as agents of the
federal government. The closed panel plan was recom-
mended to Mr. Nixon by entrenched advisers in H.E.W.
They sugar-coated this "old" and deadly socialized
medicine scheme calling i t ~ and giving it the pleas-
ant sounding name "Health Maintenance Organiza-
tion$."
Government centralizers of every hue have favor-
ed the plan for 40 years (Write: U. S. Department of
H.E.W. for Research Report No. 29 which shows that the
plan was proposed in 1932). If enacted, it will help pre-
pare public acceptance later for the more harsh and
obviously damaging other provisions of the Kennedy
plan of subsidy and control. In fact, Senator Kennedy
told H.E.W. Secretary Richardson that the HMO pro-
posal is "one of the most imaginative and creative as-
pects of the President's program."
The New Republic (February 27), considered to be
the outstanding Fabian-Socialist magazine in this coun-
try, while dutifully parroting the falsehoods of Wilbur
Cohen about infant mortality and the rest of the inter-
ventionist propaganda for compulsory nationalized
medicine and while promoting Senator Kennedy's circus
(called a Senate Health Hearing) says. "Mr. Nixon has
come a long way on the issue and many of his pro-
posals are to be commended." Also, Mr. Woodcock,
President of UAW, successor to the late Walter Reuth-
er, in February testifying before a U. S. Senate
Committee said: "I take special pleasure in compliment-
ing the Administration in placing great emphasis on
the need to support the development of HMO's -
Health Maintenance Organization,. This term embraces
Neighborhood Health Certters and Family Health Cen-
ters, and - what we and many others have for years
known as group practice prepayment plans (GPPP's)
and Professional Foundations (PF's)."
To cap the climax, AMA, according to quotations
in the Chicago Tribune, endorsed the President's plan
saying: "Our initial reaction to President Nixon's health
proposals is generally favorable." It then endorses the
revolutionary principles of the Medical Committee for
Human Rights (Dr. Quentin D. Young, past national
chairman, etc.) saying, "We endorse the principal that
it is the basic right of every citizen to have available
to him adequate health care." Mr. Kennedy knows it
leads to loss of freedom and more control; apparently
our friends do not.
Even the New York Times warns against the Nixon-
Kennedy plans saying: "Both the Nixon and Kennedy
proposals rely in different degrees upon the assump-
tion that increased use of pre-paid group practice
systems - what the President calls Health Maintenance
Organizations - can simultaneously lower costs and
improve care. Unfortunately, this assumption requires
more proof than is yet available and there are some
students of medical economics who challenge this claim
vigorously. Moreover, some existing systems of pre-
paid group practice - such as Kaiser Permanente groups
- have found that they tend to be inundated by clients
whose troubles are more emotional than organic, thus
hindering patients with serious organic illness from
gaining timely access to proper care. More study and
experimentation are needed."
'WHICHED"
Friends and foes, patients and doctors, are being
"whiched" - "which" of two government programs do
you choose? 'Which" route should the nation take as for
as medical care is concerned with respect to more taxes,
more inflation, more red tape, more bureaucracy, more
political interference in personal transactions, more
special deals for insiders, and more government em-
ployee interference with the medical judgment of quali-
fied doctors?
The question isn't asked, "Should we stop plung-
ing into the chaos of government subsidy and control?"
- We are asked "which" government plan should we
accept? That being promoted by AMA, AHA, Nixon,
Kennedy, Javits, Pell, Omar Burleson (the insurance in-
dustry) or dozens of others? This "which" is a trap. The
question isn't '"which' of the proposed government
plans do you choose?" It is "do you choose to be o
private doctor; exercising your free and independent
judgment, dealing directly with your patient and look-
ing to him only for payment" or "Do you choose to be
a political puppet smothered by minute government
rules and regulations and looking to government for
payment?"
Both the settlers and many of the recent immi-
grants to this country left Europe to avoid government
domination. The answer is clear Americans who
believe in our system of individual responsibility of
doctors and patients choose freedom. Yet foes of our
system ask: "Oh, but what are you going to do about
the poor who need care and aren't getting it?" That
question is also a trap. It assumes that if the right kind
of a government program is forced upon us the "needs"
of everyone will be taken care of as they wish or at
least better than now. If this is true, the "needs" of
everyone in Germany, Britain, Russia, etc., would be
taken care of as each citizen wished or better than
is done here. As a matter of fact, the evidence doesn't
support this. Yes, they are "taken care of" better there
than here as judged by the extent of government con-
trol of individuals and most of their activities. Under
our system, we have more and better trained doctors
per thousand citizens, more and better hospitals, more
and better drugs than any other area in the world.
STATUS OF THE NATION'S HEALTH
Secretary Richardson testified in February that:
"Amid all the passions raised about health in the
United States, it is all too frequently forgotten that a
vcuiety ~ f measures indicate that the health of our peo-
ple has been steadily improving. Since 1950, life ex-
pectancy has increased 3.4 percent, the infant death
rate has dropped 2.3 percent, the maternal death rate
has gone down 66 percent, and the neonatal death
rate has fallen by 19.5 percent. Between 1960 and
1968, the days lost from work per person have de-
creased by 3.5 percent, and the days lost from school
per person have decreased by 7.5 percent.
"Another set of indices tells us that the national
effort to purchase better health has been expanding
at a rapid rate. Health care expenditures, for example,
have been increasing at a faster rate than the growth
in the Gross National Product: in 1955, total health
expenditures were $18 billion, or 4.7 percent of GNP,
whereas in 1970 they amounted to $67 billion, or 7.0
percent of GNP.
"Yet other indices inform us that resources have
been growing faster than has population, especially in
recent years. There were 12.4 hospital beds per 1,000
people in our civilian population in 1963; by 1968, there
were 13.5. Between 1950 and 1966, while the popula-
tion of the United States was increasing by 29 percent,
the number of people in health occupations increased
by more than 90 percent - three times as fast. In 1960,
1tealth workers comprised 2.9 percent of the civilian
labor force; by 1966, the percentage was 3.7 and
rising. Our supply of physicians increased by 34 per-
cent in the same period.
"Finally, in our review of the facts, we note a
marked rise in health insurance coverage for all mem-
bers of our population. In 1950, 48.7 percent of em-
ployed workers were covered for hospitalization; in
1967, almost 72 percent were so covered. In 1950,
only 35.5 percent of employees were covered for surgi-
cal benefits, 16.4 percent for regular medical benefits,
and none for major medical expenses. In 1967, the
comparable percentages were 70.5, 61.2 and 28.8.
For the population as a whole, 20 years ago, only 50
percent had health insurance; today, it is 80 percent."
Our system has made 85% of us the envy of the
world. Through government intervention, the 85% of
us can be dragged down to the level of the 15% who
haven't made it. By being "whiched" you can contribute
to tearing down the good of the 85%. But why do
that? Why not, through voluntary non-governmental
means help the 15% to improve themselves? Through
our system, the 15% have a chance to improve their
lot. Under foreign schemes, 100% are trapped by
government with escape being their only chance for
improvement. The unfortunate few among the 15% here
who ore legally judged incapable of caring for them-
selves should first be taken care of compassionately
and personally by their family, neighbors, church, or
local government. When individuals cannot care for
their own "needs" those closest to them can judge the
extent of their needs and how to help them best. This is
not Heaven, yet it isn't the Hell of political medicine for
everyone. Those who do not believe in freedom have
abandoned the idea of "need" and say " medical care
is a right." They also say reading is a right. This, of
course, is begging the question. We either build on our
system of individual responsibility and keep government
in check or we repeat the mistakes of history and per-
mit political medicine to destroy good medicine.
Under Mr. Nixon's expansion of federal interfer-
ence, private employers would be forced to pay for
insurance for employees which the central government
would control through the establishment of standards
and other subtle means of maniuplating the insurers
and the insured. It could force cancellation of private
insurance through refusal of double coverage. We are
reminded that the old folks regardless of their desire
or ability to pay lost their insurance by mass cancella-
tion with government approval. We wonder what the
health insurance industry will have left to it. The
whole scheme proceeds a pace in helping to destroy
private decision-making (private capitalism) and in-
flating government monopoly capitalism. This is the
revolutionary transition blueprint Lenin followed and his
disciples are now using.
One Senator summed the whole thing up in a
couple of words when he was asked what was going
on in the health care field, he said, "An auction!"
. . . meaning that a political auction is taking place
between competing candidates for the presidency as
to how to buy the election with Federal Treasury funds,
and never mind the fact that it will result in the patients
paying more, getting less, and losing their heritage.
The President's Family Health Insurance Plan: The
Health message also called for doing away with Medi-
caid programs run by the states, except for programs
for the aged, blind, and disabled. The Federal Govern-
ment would pay premium costs for insurance for a
family of four having a taxable income of $3,000 or
less. Families having taxable income of $3,000 to
$5,000 would pay a portion of premium costs depend-
ing upon the size of the family.
Also, the President recommended additional sub-
sidies for a number of schemes such as an additional
$23 million to closed-panel prepayment per-capita
group practice plans - Federal loan guarantees of $300
million to help such plans raise capital so they can take
advantage of a handsome subsidy {unfairly discriminat-
ing against private practice); a series of new area
health education centers for which he requests $40
million to implement the Emergency Health Personnel
act whereby salaried public health service personnel
will practice political medicine in areas designated by
the government; an additional $60 million in new
money for educating additional health professionals;
increase the Allied Health Personnel Training Program
by 50% over 1971 levels to $29 million and that $15
million of this amount be devoted to training
assistants. He instructed H.E.W. to pressure 22 states
to abandon laws against delegating certain medical
tasks to assistants. He called it eliminating state bar-
riers. Former Secretary Wilbur Cohen expressed the
same principles. The President also proposes that peo-
ple over 65 stop paying for Part B which is now schedul-
ed to rise to $5.60 per month. He would pay it all out
of increased Social Security taxes. This is the program
that Mr. Johnson used to establish the principle of gov-
ernment intervention through Medicare - which he said
would only cost old people $1.00 per month and
wouldn't cost the Federal Treasury anthing.
CRUNCHING BURDENS OF BUREAUCRACY
Yet Mr. Nixon told the American College of
Cardiology "we must keep the doctor free from the
terrible crushing burden of bureaucracy." "I don't
want my doctor to spend so much time filling out forms
that he doesn't spend enough time doing what is need-
ed to be done as a doctor for the patient."
Judging from Mr. Nixon's protest about his in-
tentions and his conflicting advocacy of government
intervention as proposed by H.E.W. and government
interventionists for the past 90 years, he is trapped and
confused. Only vigorous and intelligent action by you
and your patients and many other doctors and their
patients will stop the "auction" and "the confusion."
SYMPATHY
It is with deep regret that we inform the member-
ship of the death of Louis S. Wegryn, M.D. Sea Girt,
New Jersey on Sunday, February 14, 1971. He was
President of the Association from 1959-1960 and served
the Associaton in many capacities - President, Director,
Delegate and Chairman and member of several Com-
mittees. We extend our deepest sympathy to Mrs.
Wegryn and other members of the Wegryn family.
PRIVATE DOCTORS INSTITUTE
The Private Doctors Institute will be meeting in
Chicago on April 15-17, 1971 at the Hotels Ambassa-
dor, Chicago. Enclosed with this News Letter is a
brochure g1vmg complete details on this IMPORT ANT
Meeting, listing speakers, registration fee and other
pertinent data. Please fill out the room reservation
form and return it with your check for registration fee
to AAPS Chicago Headquarters - AT ONCE. Time is
short - please mail your card today.
WOMAN'S AUXILIARY
The AAPS Woman's Auxiliary will hold its second
meeting at the April sessions, Hotel Ambassador, East,
Kennedy Suite. Mrs. Maurice W. Peterson is Chairman
of the Auxiliary for this year. There will be a "get ac-
quainted" session on Thursday; Friday will be Ladies
Day with a luncheon in the fashionable PUMP ROOM,
a tour of the Chicago Board of Trade Building, and a
Business Session where Committees will be appointed
on Saturday morning. Plan now to attend this meeting
with your husband to make this newly formed group
a success.
RESOtuTIONS
Resolutions to be considered at the April Meeting
by the Resolutions Committee must be submitted in
usual resolution form, in writing, and preferably typed
and received at Chicago Headquarters no later than
March 26, 1971.
Sincerely,
Maurice W. Peterson, M.D.
President
Enclosure: Private Doctors Institute
brochure with reservation form